Updated Docket SheetAs of Monday, most of those documents had not yet been added to the file. I'll attempt to get copies for completeness at some point in the future, [highlight]after the overworked documents branch clerks have had time to catch up[/highlight]. (So probably early next year.)Yet another example of the differences between the folks here and Orly and other birthers. If Orly, Miki Booth, Jeff LeFraud, or Deano had gone there, they'd be yelling at these folks at the top of their voices, accusing everyone of treason (and worse) until the clerks handed them the documents. They would then update their blogs and ask their followers to call, write or email the courts, Hawaii Gov., etc. demanding the clerks be fired IMMEDIATELY.

I am disappointed with the state's attorney and with the judge. Wolf's argument is absolutely meaningless and all the discussion about if Rule 502 applies is nonsense. What is being discuss at the hearing is a rule of evidence.

Rule 101. Scope. These rules govern proceedings in the courts of the State of Hawaii, to the extent and with the exceptions stated in rule 1101.Got that .... "proceedings in the courts." Not whether or not an agency of the state has to produce a document outside the context of a court case. Rule 502 relates to the issue of privileged when a matter is being litigated in the court and the privileged information is relevant to determine the matter in dispute. And what kind of matters does it take to overcome the privilege discussed in the rule?

Rule 502: No privilege exists under this rule in actions involving perjury, false statements, fraud in the return or report, or other failure to comply with the law in question.Query: Did Wolf's lawsuit involve "perjury, false statements, fraud in the return or report, or other failure to comply with the law in question? No it did not. [Don't get me started on the law in question. Even Wolf's counsel did not go down that path. He argued perjury and false statements.]

Perhaps on a more basic level (hinted at above) - these are rules of evidence. In other words, rules as to what is and is not admissibly in court. The most basic rule of admissibility is relevance. [Ready for this?} The vault copy of Obama's LFBC is not relevant to the only issue before the court - does the state have to comply with the open records act request for a viewing of the vault copy.

I re-read Wolf's original complaint and the transcript from the trial. In the transcript, Wolf's attorney talks about the [highlight]"experts"[/highlight] who claimed Obama's LFBC (located on the White House website) is forged. I didn't see anything in the original complaint that identified these witnesses or their affidavits. Forgive me if I missed them.My question is are these "experts" the same ones Orly cites in her lawsuits or did Wolf find some new "experts"?

Wonder if Wolf is Haskins' White whale benefactor? It would explain all the bullshit around Haskins' Hidden Hawai'ian Hoot'nanny, as well as probably getting us the inevitable Well-Known Writer Miki Booth's upcoming update, I'd think. (If she wasn't there, what kind of Honolulu operative is she, anyway)?

Most of you have probably already seen the comments over at ORYR:From the commentary above... "The attorney, John Carroll, told me that he is filing an immediate motion for reconsideration, as the judge completely ignored the statute that they argued removes the familial requirement in cases of fraud. They are already set to be back in court on Dec.27, so he is getting his motion for reconsideration filed in time for it to be heard then."True, but they didn't properly plead fraud and now can not raise it anew in any motion for reconsideration.The hearing date on the calendar (on the docket it actually states the 28th, not the 27th) was set for the plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment... the case has been dismissed, therefore that motion is moot. He may or may not get a hearing on his motion to reconsider on the same date already reserved for the summary judgment motion. Today is the 9th, and it's not been filed nor served yet. Will it comport with notice and response time requirements to be heard then? Dunno. Would have to check the HI Cir Ct. rules.So that answered my question.[/break1]blogspot.com/2011/12/wolf-v-fuddy-dismissed-on-basis.html]http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot ... basis.html

We gotta get a fogbow thing to add at the front & end of those birfer report youtubes. bd It must be a funny one. Perhaps it could be a rooster saying Fogbow brings you all the nuttiness that is Birfistan or something along those lines. \ :D / And maybe something at the end as well. I need to learn how to do stuff. ?(Obots rule.Birthers drool.

I re-read Wolf's original complaint and the transcript from the trial. In the transcript, Wolf's attorney talks about the [highlight]"experts"[/highlight] who claimed Obama's LFBC (located on the White House website) is forged. I didn't see anything in the original complaint that identified these witnesses or their affidavits. Forgive me if I missed them.My question is are these "experts" the same ones Orly cites in her lawsuits or did Wolf find some new "experts"?the attachments to the original complaint were not made available as far as I can tell.

RULE 502 IS A RULE OF EVIDENCE.There, I feel better. :D Yes. The Circuit Court came to the right decision for the wrong reason. The Hawai'i Court of Appeals will set the ruling straight.Nagamine could have made a stronger argument here as well. Did she do so in her response? Yes she did in her motion to dismiss.

Wonder if Wolf is Haskins' White whale benefactor? It would explain all the bullshit around Haskins' Hidden Hawai'ian Hoot'nanny, as well as probably getting us the inevitable Well-Known Writer Miki Booth's upcoming update, I'd think. (If she wasn't there, what kind of Honolulu operative is she, anyway)?Dean made circumspective promises about a lawsuit. This one flew under the radar until WE FOUND IT and began discussing it. Very unusual, because the birthers typically trumpet every new filing.

"Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero,
and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful." - Kahlil Gibran, The Garden of The Prophet

It would explain all the bullshit around Haskins' Hidden Hawai'ian Hoot'nanny, as well as probably getting us the inevitable Well-Known Writer Miki Booth's upcoming update, I'd think. (If she wasn't there, what kind of Honolulu operative is she, anyway)?Dean made circumspective promises about a lawsuit. This one flew under the radar until WE FOUND IT and began discussing it. Very unusual, because the birthers typically trumpet every new filing.Dean was the first to trumpet his contact with Carroll after the dismissal ruling on ORYR's comments.

Is it possible Meano Deano would have (could have?) been quiet about this, if he's involved, because he's publicly called for people to support Orly, while Wolf v. Fuddy was a clear attempt to take Orly's case and run with it, without her?

I re-read Wolf's original complaint and the transcript from the trial. In the transcript, Wolf's attorney talks about the [highlight]"experts"[/highlight] who claimed Obama's LFBC (located on the White House website) is forged. I didn't see anything in the original complaint that identified these witnesses or their affidavits. Forgive me if I missed them.My question is are these "experts" the same ones Orly cites in her lawsuits or did Wolf find some new "experts"?the attachments to the original complaint were not made available as far as I can tell.They were not. None of them appeared to contain material that was new to any of us, so I didn't think it was worth the $.50/page copying fee, particularly since there were 40-50 pages worth. If people really want them, I can get them next time I'm there.

"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

I re-read Wolf's original complaint and the transcript from the trial. In the transcript, Wolf's attorney talks about the [highlight]"experts"[/highlight] who claimed Obama's LFBC (located on the White House website) is forged. I didn't see anything in the original complaint that identified these witnesses or their affidavits. Forgive me if I missed them.My question is are these "experts" the same ones Orly cites in her lawsuits or did Wolf find some new "experts"?the attachments to the original complaint were not made available as far as I can tell.They were not. None of them appeared to contain material that was new to any of us, so I didn't think it was worth the $.50/page copying fee, particularly since there were 40-50 pages worth. If people really want them, I can get them next time I'm there.No need. I assume they are our favorite "experts" Ivey, Vogt and Papa. You've already done so much for us -- and I for one really apreciate all you've done in the cause of challenging birther falsehoods.

I re-read Wolf's original complaint ... Wolf's attorney talks about the

[highlight]"experts"[/highlight] ....Note that Wolf's atty King said that the experts had not been challenged. He didn't actually say that none of the cases had got as far as letting any of the evidence and/or experts in, never mind challenging them.

So he maybe meant to imply that the expert evidence was "stipulated" or otherwise accepted.

Birthers think a "motion for reconsideration" is just a bunch of printed-out bullshit you throw at a court to keep your utterly frivolous case alive a couple more weeks so that idiots can click on your Paypal button.Not one birther has yet realized that a "motion for reconsideration" is not a "motion to throw in a bunch of new shit I was too stupid even to think of before the ruling throwing out my original complaint."

Birthers think a "motion for reconsideration" is just a bunch of printed-out bullshit you throw at a court to keep your utterly frivolous case alive a couple more weeks so that idiots can click on your Paypal button.Not one birther has yet realized that a "motion for reconsideration" is not a "motion to throw in a bunch of new shit I was too stupid even to think of before the ruling throwing out my original complaint."Nor do they understand that a dismissed case is a DEAD case. The motion for reconsideration is merely an attempt to resuscitate the patient. The doctor already called the TOD.

"Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero,
and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful." - Kahlil Gibran, The Garden of The Prophet

I am disappointed with the state's attorney and with the judge. Wolf's argument is absolutely meaningless and all the discussion about if Rule 502 applies is nonsense. What is being discuss at the hearing is a rule of evidence

....

Perhaps on a more basic level (hinted at above) - these are rules of evidence. In other words, rules as to what is and is not admissibly in court. The most basic rule of admissibility is relevance. [Ready for this?} The vault copy of Obama's LFBC is not relevant to the only issue before the court - does the state have to comply with the open records act request for a viewing of the vault copy.

[I feel like I should have written this in all caps. ](*,) ]I wonder if the Judge went down the list and never reached the 'does rule 502 apply' since he already found that no privilege exists under rule 502 and thus the case should be dismissed. No need to address the rest.

If the Judge had found that rule 502 does support the plaintiff's arguments, then the next question is to address if the rule applies to this case.

IANAL so I am trying to understand how cases are typically decided. I do understand that assertions of constitutionality are left for 'last resort' if the case can be decided without addressing it for instance.

Did Wolf assert that rule 502 applied? If so, as nbc suggests, wouldn't it be best to assume it applies and see what the result would be?

It's a loss either way, so I see no harm no foul.

Also, Justice v. Fuddy is controlling. That wasn't really discussed because they were focusing on rule 502.Of course, now Wolf et al believe that Rule 502 applies and that the Judge should have considered the fraud part. Of course, the judge described his thinking and the lawyer decided not to object or raise the fraud issue at all, missing quite an opportunity. Re-raising the issue in a motion for reconsideration appears to be ill considered as rule 59 does not apply yet and rule 60 outlines some quite restrictive reasons as to why a rule 60 may be raised. Forgetting to properly raise it during the hearing is NOT one of them.

Furthermore

The Hawaii Supreme Court has stressed that a Motion for Reconsideration is not to be used to reargue the motion.

“The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to allow parties to present new evidence and/or arguments that could not have been presented during the earlier adjudicated motion.”

AMFAC, Inc. v. Waikiki Beachcomber Inv. Co., 74 Haw. 85, 114, (1992) (citations omitted) (in affirming circuit court’s denial of Amfac’s motion for reconsideration, holding that Amfac’s only “new” argument advanced in support of its motion for reconsideration could and should have been made in support of its underlying motion for summary judgment).

Moreover, the Hawaii Supreme Court has also expressed its concern for the abuse of the Motion for Reconsideration, stating, in Gossinger v. Ass’n of Apt. Owners, 73 Haw. 412 (1992), the following:

Although motions for rehearing ought not to be discountenanced, there has been a growing tendency here to treat them as an ordinary step in the course of a case; and this tendency, I think, should be discouraged. Too often we see motions to rehear of a purely repetitious nature. Again we find them predicated upon factual or legal ground that could or should have been presented at the original hearing. In both instances they necessarily result in delay and wasted effort by court and counsel.

Gossinger at 425-427.

Thus, the party seeking a Motion for Reconsideration must be prepared to show that the evidence presented or arguments made in support of the motion for reconsideration could not or should not have been made in the earlier proceeding. Only then will the Court reconsider its ruling on the previous motion. This underscores the importance of a party having sufficient evidence and raising all arguments before making any motion.

Source: [/break1]hawaii-attorney.net/2011/02/28/motions-for-reconsideration-in-hawaii/]Motions for reconsideration in Hawaii

The issue of 'fraud, false statements, perjury' was raised in the original motion I believe and the State did address them IIRC